Special analysis from Lara Friedman (Americans for Peace Now) and Danny Seidemann (Ir Amim).
Yesterday Special Envoy Mitchell met with Israeli chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho in London.
One topic discussed, apparently, was a new Israeli plan (number 13157) to expand the Jerusalem settlement of Gilo. The plan was on the agenda of the Jerusalem Regional Planning Committee today (Tues); barring outside intervention, the Committee was expected to approve the deposit of the plan for public review - a significant step toward its implementation.
page of Yediot Ahronot - Israel's largest circulation daily. The
headline in the Hebrew print edition read: "US: Don't Build in Gilo
Neighborhood; Astonishment in Israel from a New American Demand."
This is a crisis engineered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A crisis intended to create a head-on collision
with the Obama Administration over Jerusalem. The Obama Administration
had no choice but to intervene on this plan. And while Bibi had a
number of "conventional" options for dealing with the issue, he chose
to go nuclear by making this issue - and his defiance of US concerns -
a top story. In doing so, he has undermined the prospects for the very
negotiations he claims he wants.
First, some background is in order, because the plan is being spun in
the Israeli press as something simple and non-controversial -
construction in one of the oldest Israelis settlements in East
Jerusalem, one that many Israelis forget is technically a settlement at
all.
This is, of course, just spin. The plan, if implemented, will allow
the construction of 844 units, and these units won't be inside the
existing footprint of the settlement. Rather, they will be on the
settlement's southwestern flank, expanding Gilo in the direction of the
Palestinian village of Wallajeh (a village in which a large number of
the homes are fighting Israeli demolition orders). This new Gilo plan
clearly dovetails with another plan to build a new settlement, called
Givat Yael, which would straddle the Jerusalem border and significantly
extend Israeli Jerusalem to the south, further sealing the city off
from the Bethlehem area and the West Bank (and connecting it to the
Etzion settlement bloc). That plan, it was reported yesterday, also
appears to be suddenly gaining steam. (for a map showing both the Gilo plan and Givat Yael, click here.)
The Gilo plan is thus extremely provocative on several levels. It
represents a clear and public statement from the Netanyahu government
that it is neither "freezing" nor acting with "restraint" in East
Jerusalem. It compels the Palestinians to respond, just as it compels
other regional actors to respond. Finally, it has important strategic
implications, since the plan, implemented, would impact on border
options for Jerusalem under a future peace agreement.
Today's crisis was by no means inevitable. Nobody (except for those of
us who obsessively follow Jerusalem at its most minute level) had any
idea this Gilo plan was on the agenda for today. This means that Bibi
could easily have responded positively to US concerns and quietly
quashed or delayed the project, without any political cost.
Alternatively, he could have offered another (deceptively) constructive
course, like allowing it to be deposited for public review but
promising to find other ways to hold it up later. Or he could simply
have refused to intervene, but kept quiet about it - letting today's
technical approval process run it course and only react publicly, after
the fact.
Bibi had a number of conventional options; he chose to go nuclear.
If this feels familiar, it should. This is basically what happened
earlier this year with the /entries/wp263 (link has expired) Shepherds Hotel settlement in Sheikh
Jarrah. The plan was on the agenda, Washington weighed in firmly but
quietly, hoping for firm but quiet action by Netanyahu - and instead
they got a story leaked to the Israeli media (in fact, to the same
journalist who broke today's Gilo story), turning it into an
opportunity for Netanyahu to burnish his Jerusalem credentials, at the
expense of the prospects for peace.
Or for those who have a longer memory, this might remind them of Har
Homa. The US had strongly and consistently opposed construction of
this settlement (located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem), but that
didn't stop Bibi from using it twice to "balance" pro-peace moves -
first in 1997 (after the signing the Hebron Agreement), and again in
1998 (immediately after his cabinet endorsed the Wye River
Memorandum). Today Har Homa is home to around 10,000 Israelis and
still expanding.
This time around, there is no Hebron Agreement or Wye Memorandum, but
there is the much-discussed settlement "moratorium" that one might have
expected to be announced any day now. A moratorium that was going to
be a hard sell for the Obama Administration under the best of
circumstances, given the dominant narrative of "you promised a full
freeze and you failed to deliver." Now, with Bibi going nuclear on the
Jerusalem issue, it is hard to see how any settlement "moratorium" - no
matter what its details- can credibly be used to promote negotiations.
The Gilo plan did indeed come up in today's meeting of the Jerusalem
Regional Planning Board which, no surprise, decided to approve the
deposit of Plan 13157 for public review. This does not mean
implementation is inevitable - by no means - but it does mean that it
now requires the investment of serious political capital to stop.
So what happens next? It is imperative that Netanyahu be convinced -
by Israelis, by Washington, by Jewish voices worldwide, by the
international community - to swear off nuclear tactics in Jerusalem.
And not only with respect to the Gilo project, but with respect to all
of the other projects and plans that are in the drawers of
troublemakers in the various ministries and municipal offices -
including those under the authority of Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, who
seems almost childishly eager to fan the flames of conflict in the
city. Plans like E1 and the Old City Historic Basin project.
He must do so for the sake of Israel's own best interests.
Let no one be confused: no genuine Israeli interest is served by any
of these projects, unless one perceives the Israeli interest as the
prevention of credible negotiations with the Palestinians that could
lead to a two-state solution. Or, to put it more crassly, the only interest served by these projects
is the prevention of the two-state solution and the transformation of
the Israeli-Arab conflict from a difficult but resolvable conflict over
territory into an irresolvable zero-sum religious war.
Email a friend
twitter
facebook
feed
Where is the Israeli left in Israel protesting their government's actions? That would give pro-Israel, anti-settlement activists here much greater leverage with the mainstream US pro-Israel Jewish community.
The White House just released a statement about this incident. Click here.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 17, 2009
Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Approval of Settlement Expansion in Jerusalem
We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.
###
This "analysis" is lunacy. Get into your heads - under the law, Israeli Prime Minister don't have any power to block private construction in Jerusalem, which (unlike West Bank settlements) is sovereign Israeli territory under Israeli civic law. Moreover - there's not one sane Israeli not on the payroll of some "peacemongers" who believes that construction in Gilo is 1) detrimental to prospects of Palestinian statehood or 2) has any regional or global importance. Ask yourself this - why Obama and Mitchell need to involve themselves with this puny issue? There is a majority in Israel which agrees that Bibi should freeze construction in the settlements, but this same majority doesn't think that Gilo is a settlement, and when Obama - and you - tell them it is, and all Jerusalem is on the plate, then don't cast around for too much support.
Haim,
You have your facts wrong and as always, the facts matter.
The Gilo project discussed here is sponsored by the ILA. It is not private. It must be approved every step of the way by governmental bodies - indeed, the committee that decided yesterday to deposit it for public review operates under the framework of the Ministry of Interior, whose head (the Minister) is a member of Netanyahu's cabinet.
As a Jew , I support Israeli consensus to wit: keep the major Jewish population centers on the West Bank.I have no problems building in them.Why should I? Why give up land to people who will not acknowledge the existence of a Jewish State named Israel? Or Jewish rights in Jerusalem? This is hardly about peace; it's pure process and diplomatic busiwork. Obama , for whatever his reasons does not like the Jewish State. He can't force his views down Israel's throat as much as he would like to. He doesn't even comprehend the issues. He has a voice, but no believable answers
The only time to remove non -consensus settlements is when there is a credible partner. Only a fool would term Abbas a moderate. Abbas has made zero consessions. "Dialogue" with him is silly at best.
John,
Regardless of whether you are a Jew or an Inuit or anything else there is a very good reason why you should not support settlements on the West Bank. Quite simply they are in illegally occupied territory and they are contrary to international law. The way to gain peace is to grant freedom and justice to the Palestinian people. And Israel's consistant policies of violence, oppression, torture, theft, racism, apartheid and dehumanisation of its victims are anathema to peace. It is as simple as that. Either you learn to behave as civilized humans or you continue to attract increasing world opprobrium and condemnation as a rogue state.
Richard
John,
Only fools regarded Mandela as a moderate, after all, he was a convicted terrorist. Now consider that Abbas has rejected violence, whether for principled or pragmatic reasons. This is something that Mandela never did. As far as Abbas's willingness to recognize Israel--he is willing to recognize it as a state. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness recognized Northern Ireland, but refused to recognize it as a Protestant state or a unionist state. David Trimble was wise enough not to demand that.
Consider that Abbas also has internal opposition and pressures. Those that want to help him will decrease that opposition by refraining from provocative actions. Those that don't want a solution will increase those pressures through provocative actions, it is as simple as that.
As a Jew, I always support Israeli concensus. If you are loyal, its your job.Period.I never side with any enemy of the Jewish people. There is virtually no chance for peace for Israelis at this time. Arabs remain irredentist while the Obama administration is immensely hostile to the Jewish state.Things are as they are. Nothing ever changes.
Reviewing the comments thus far reminds me of people arguing over the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin... useless!
"John Smith" illustrates the basic intransigent position of the 'loyal' (but not quite bright) Zionist... akin to the "my country, right or wrong"; "love it or leave it" anti-intellectualism so characteristic of authoritarian conservatives while, on the other hand, is the over-intellectualized rationality of the intelligentsia.
Both fail to acknowledge the essential truth of Israel's existence. It is to create "Greater Israel" with no regard to the effects of that goal on the indigenous Palestinian population... the Israeli two-state solution: The state of Israel and the Palestinians go to other states like Jordan.
This has been the underlying motivation of all Israeli actions since its founding and continues while the other nations of the world argue over whether the latest Israeli 'hand job' makes them feel sufficiently satisfied.
Until Israel's actual goals are recognized and internalized the world will fail to make an adequate response to Israeli aggression (whether by "settlement" or by repeated 'Gaza Massacres') until such time as the point becomes moot.
In order to insure that a real two-state solution (as most rational people understand it and as described in the "Roadmap"), the world must determine that it is going to 'lower the boom' on Israel with international BDS movements and governmental boycotts or blockades (such as everyone's so anxious to impose on Iran).
Short of that, ya'll are just beating your gums.
Please excuse typo above: "angles" should read "angels"
Al Quds must be restored to Muslim rule because it is Islamic Waqf. Gilo is just a symptom of the theft of Palestine. You must choose israel or peace. You cannot have both